Jehovah`s Witness/That Hole Just Keeps Getting Deeper, Doesn't It, Eddie?
It seems the more Eddie tries, the worse it gets. We STILL saw no answers to any of the evidence. Let's not hold our breath that we ever will, because as he said, his "case is closed". In fact, it was kicked out of court as having no basis.
At any rate, below is my response to his wanting some type of acknowledgment of error from me, which he is not specific about what he looking for. Nevertheless, I did find where I had typed a wrong word, and am happy to clear that up, while continuing to expose Eddie's distortions and hatred for the KJB, even to the point of making several false and baseless statements about how it translates "xylon".
Sure Eddie, let’s go ahead and get this one out of the way and cleared up, so that we can move on to your continued distortions of everything having to do with this topic.
You ask about this quote from my last writing…“"Eddie ADMITS the KJB does NOT translate “xylon” as “cross” ANYWHERE. And this, after previous telling us several times, that it DOES. So, in addition to Eddie falsely claiming that “xylon” was used in Acts 10:39 , which he was called out on, and proven wrong, Eddie then tried to imply that the KJB was inaccurate for translating “xylon” as “cross” in several places. He even asked me WHY the KJB would do this. And guess what…It DIDN’T. Big “OOOOPS“!”
You then ask…
“What did I say to David in the follow reply?”
Here's you chance to show who actually is the one hiding the truth here?
No need to “hide the truth”, and I am all too happy to correct my mistake in referencing your quote, which was STILL completely false. I typed in the above quote that you claimed that “xylon”
was used in Acts 10:39, and I should have typed that you said “stauros”
was used in Acts 10:39. My mistake…I’ve only been typing the word “xylon” about 200 times now, and I had that word on my mind when I was typing.
No problem there. I’m not sure if THAT is what you were looking for, or if you are wanting to show how you retracted your false statement. Either way, I caught this one myself, and wanted to clear it up. I will address your so-called “retraction” in a moment.
But a few facts about Acts 10:39...Although I meant to type “stauros” but had “xylon” on my mind and typed that instead, it still does not change the fact you made a false statement, in an attempt to tarnish the KJB.
The fact is, “xylon” IS used in Acts 10:39, and you falsely said “stauros” was used.
You said to Dave…“ Coincidentally, the translators of the KJV forgot to change the word "stauros" at Acts 10:39 because they left the original rendering as "a tree" instead of "a cross".
Act 10:39 KJV - "And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:"
Any idea why?
So, in your attempt to make the KJB look dishonest, you claimed they “forgot to change” stauros
to “cross”. Unfortunately, there was no “forgetting to change” anything, because there was NOTHING TO change. The word in Acts 10:39 is “xylon”
, not stauros
, as you falsely claimed.
But wait, you want us to see that you retracted, is that correct? You ask “What did I say to David in the follow-up?”
Here is what you said in the NEXT follow-up, Eddie…You actually CONTINUED using your previous lie about Acts 10:39, as a springboard for further accusations. Now to be fair, what I THINK you are wanting everyone to see, is that in your follow-up, you CHANGED the word from stauros
, into “xylon“
EDDIE: “QUESTION: Additional instances where the translators of the KJV did NOT or forgot to change the Greek word Xylon into "a cross" but instead left it as is - "a tree":
NOTE: By using the term “additional instances”, this is NO RETRACTION at all. A RETRACTION would’ve said this…“I was wrong, in that I mistakenly used "stauros", when I should’ve said "xylon“
. When you say “additional instances,” you are STILL trying to be deceptive and indicate that your PRIOR quote was an actual example of this, which it was NOT!
And that is supposed to be a “retraction”? Just because you quietly changed the word to the correct one, with NO acknowledgment of error?
Eddie, is there some other quote somewhere in your answer to Dave, that I am missing, where you actually ACKNOWLEDGED you made a blunder?
You went on to say….“Just in case you want to know if there are additional instances (besides Acts 10:39) where the translators of the KJV did NOT or forgot to change the Greek word Xylon into "a cross" but instead left it as is - "a tree"
NOTE: Again, you quietly changed the word to the correct one, but you did not acknowledge making a blunder in your previous statement. Instead, you once again use the phrase “additional instances”, to indicate your first statement was correct, when it wasn’t.
You then told yet another lie, in your supposed “retraction“…“Q: Why did the KJV translators left the original Gr word Xylon as "the/a tree " in the above instances while saw fit to change it as "a cross" on others?”
And to make matters worse, you then ask me the SAME EXACT deceptive question….
EDDIE G….“Why did the KJV translators left the original Gr word Xylon as "the/a tree " in the above verses while saw fit to change it as "a cross" on others?
Any idea why?
Your answer Mr. Holland?”
That is why I called you out on it, and challenged you for the Scriptures in the King James, where “xylon” was translated “cross”.
You tried several times to just IGNORE the question, until you finally admitted there were no such instances, as you had been CLAIMING there were. Even over a month AFTER your fellow JW pointed out your error in the ADD ON (which I will show in a moment), you still had the nerve to ask me the SAME question, along with making this deceptive comment....
YOU: "But since you didn't answer my questions as to WHY the KJB was not consistent and why it did not used the traditional "Christian CROSS" in its renderings (on the above mentioned texts), the answer is OBVIOUS!"
So you are STILL claiming the KJB was "not consistent" in its translation of "xylon", basing this absurdity on your prior comment that it sometimes translates "xylon" as "cross".
A complete fabrication.
So then, you sheepishly come on here and admit there aren’t ANY. But instead of acting like anything resembling an honest Christian with scruples, you tried to HIDE your deception by acting like you knew it all along! That isn’t how real Christians act when they make a blunder. Just like my mistake above, where I use the wrong word…A REAL Christian would WANT to correct an honest mistake. When they don’t want to correct it, its because there wasn’t anything “honest” about the mistake.
And you want some sort of credit for changing the word in your follow-up? You’re out of your mind.
Oh, and I don’t suppose your “correcting” yourself and using the RIGHT word, had anything to do with the “Add On” comments by a fellow JW, who basically told you that you didn’t know what you were talking about, did it? This is the ADD ON that I referenced previously...
I quote the ADD ON comments….
“Eddie G you made a mistake. In Acts 10:39 the word there is not "stauros" as in you reply but "Xylon"
“Eddie, you need to do your homework better yoa asked
Q: Why did the KJV translators left the original Gr word Xylon as "the/a tree " in the above instances while saw fit to change it as "a cross" on others?
Any idea David?
The answer is the KJV translators never translated Xylon as cross in any instance. The rendered in the following ways
tree 10 times, staff 5 times, wood 3 times and stocks 1 times;
The word stauros appears 28 times in the NT and in each occasion the KJV translates it as cross,
Now, you show us ANYWHERE in that follow-up to Dave, of yours, where there is anything that even LOOKS like an admission of error? Funny, you are hypocritical enough to call it a “lie” when I type the wrong word, but when you do it, and don’t even ACKNOWLEDGE error, then that is supposed to be an acceptable “retraction”.
No, all I see in that post (unless there is another one somewhere), is where you quietly changed the word in the follow-up answer and response, but still used your initial false premise as a springboard to tell more lies about the King James Bible’s translation of “xylon”.
Is that what you were looking for, Eddie?
Bottom line…You hate the KJB, and you tried to discredit it, even by lying about how it translates words.
And you know what else, Eddie? You proved that you have no idea what you’re talking about, and that you’re inept when it comes to Biblical languages.
So my question is….Regardless of whether you came back and changed the word or not, WHY did you even post that nonsense to start with, without even researching to see if what you were posting, was true?
Now, on to your other diversion….
“No Mr. Holland, it's NOT a MISQUOTE but a STRAIGHTFORWARD TALK.
“Since you like to beat around the bush by using so many long winded words and context manipulation and play on words, it was time for me to show the readers what YOUR REAL and TRUE INTENTIONS were.”
“That is, as I said:”
“What you're trying to do is to make a connection between the Greek word "xylon" - a pole / stake to the traditional CROSS so that by default both will appear as though they are one and the same.”
“And that is the reason why you brought up what trees are made of - wood. Why you brought up what a pole is made of - wood and what a 'XYLON' is made of - wood. You did this in order to, if I may say so, show that if: a POLE is made of wood and a 'xylon' is also made of wood THEREFORE a pole is a cross and cross is a pole.”
RESPONSE: Uh no, Eddie…wrong as usual. The reason I brought up that trees/crosses/poles/canoes/benches are made of wood, is because “WOOD” is the primary DEFINITION of the word “xylon”, which you were twisting to mean ONLY a pole without a cross-beam. My point was that ALL objects made from wood, are “xylons”, as any study of the word will show. This means that all wooded crosses are "xylons", but it does NOT mean that all "xylons" are wooden crosses, as you claimed. How you can get something so twisted, so many times over and over, is the biggest mystery of all.
But again, it was intentional. You already painted yourself into a corner by limiting the defintion of “xylon”, to what you WISH it was, and not what it really is. It was NOT, as you said, to prove that “a pole is a cross”
, because as I’ve already stated, NOT ALL poles are crosses. But adding a cross-beam to a pole, does not mean it is no longer a pole.
This is what happens when a man refuses to answer questions, and tries to defend an out-dated position, that is indefensible.
So yes, Eddie, it was a misquote. Better yet, a distortion of my comments, into something that you could try and MAKE into a logical fallacy. Unfortunately for you, you failed, because you had to impose your own idea onto my words, just to create the fallacy.
But the problem with the above, is that you lied. You claimed I was saying just the opposite of what I said.
You claim that I was saying “crosses are xylons and xylons are crosses”
…A complete fabrication, and you KNEW it. No logical fallacy on my part....just a lie on yours.
I clearly had already said that “NOT all “xylons” were crosses, but that crosses were “xylons”
. So, you completely fabricated a charge, just to get out from under the fact that you were proven wrong. You intentionally twisted my words into the opposite of what they actually said, and you show just what a man of “truth” you are. You have learned well from Rando. I realize that you hate the fact that my statement is the opposite of what you tried to make it say, while you then hypocritically lecture everyone on “half-truths”, but hey, my words are right there in print for everyone to see…not just what I said, but how you tried to distort it.
Real honest there, Eddie.
Furthermore, I clearly pointed out how “xylon” is a broad word, with a WIDE variation of objects that are “xylon”s, because a “xylon” is a wooden object. You lied and told the readers that a “xylon” can ONLY be an upright pole. That is simply false, you KNOW it is false, and you tried to mislead the readers with your false “facts”, and your attempted manipulation by the use of threats.
I’m sure it flew right over your head, that this was the reason I brought up about the word for “fornication”, and how it too, is a broad word…for ANY type of sexual sin. That was the point of my saying that “all adultery is fornication, but NOT all fornication is adultery”
. According to your failure to understand anything, that would mean I was actually saying that “all adultery is fornication, and all fornication is adultery”
Eddie, bottom line…You are in a conversation you are simply not qualified to be in. You either have NO IDEA what a “xylon” was, or you are willfully lying. Either way, you are completely, and a million miles off base.
Some definitions of “xylon”….
MERRIAM-WEBSTER- Full Definition of -XYLON
1 : one having (such) wood—in generic names <Haematoxylon>
2 : one living in (such) a relation to wood <Hypoxylon>
3 : wood <laurinoxylon>
WIKIPEDIA- Greek xylon "piece of wood, tree"
In the Hebrew Bible Deuteronomy 21:23 states that "cursed of God is everyone who hangs on a tree." In the Septuagint this became epi xylon "upon a piece of wood," and usage for "hanging" (Joshua 8:29; 10:24), then passing into New Testament usage such as Peter's 3 uses of xylon (in English Bibles "tree") compared to Paul who only uses xylon "piece of wood" once.
In Greek texts the word xylon "piece of wood" could be used for any object made of wood, including in varying contexts, gallows, stocks, pales and stakes.
STRONG’S- wood, timber, 1 Cor. 3:12; Rev. 18:12; stocks, Acts 16:24; a club, Mt. 26:47, 55; a post, cross, gibbet, Acts 5:30; 10:29; 13:29; a tree, Lk. 23:31; Rev. 2:7
And I am just going to take the time here, for the benefit of anyone who wants to do some in-depth research of their own on this topic, to provide a link that deals directly with the Watchtower’s distortions on this very issue.
But suffice it to say, the big burr in Eddie’s saddle right now, is coming from the fact that the word “xylon” has a FAR greater range of meaning, than what he wants you, the reader, to see. He wants you think it means “upright pole”, and ONLY “upright pole”, and that if it happened to be an upright pole already in place and a cross-beam was later added, then it ceases to be a “xylon”.
Notice how many times now, he has refused to answer that point, about HOW crucifixions were carried out? There’s a reason he keeps ignoring it, and attacking me instead.
Its called….WEAKNESS OF POSITION.